Arguments on the admission heard. It is stated by the counsel for complainant that the complainants had a Loan facility i.e.  “Loan Against Property- HomeSaver Account” running from Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., a sanction letter dated 28/02/2011 was issued by the OP and a Loan Agreement dated 28/02/2011 was entered into by and between the OP and complainants vide loan no. 48228389 for a term of 180 months (15 years) for an amount of Rs. 02,50,00,000/- at a variable interest rate of 11.65% per annum. The purpose for taking the Loan was Business Expansion. The complainants diligently kept paying the loan amount and the interest amount on a timely basis and they have never once defaulted in making any payments and always took steps as per the terms and conditions set in the Loan Agreement.

In the year 2017, OP approached the complainants and offered to extend the loan facility and represented that the new loan facility will prove even more beneficial as the OP will allow the complainants to close and pay off the amount of Hone Loan No. 48228389 and the rest of the amount will then be allowed to be cashed out as working capital. The OP also represented that no/nil AMC (Annual Maintenance Charges) will be charged from the complainants and that it will also sanction the loan amount at a lower interest rate.

The Home Loan No. 48228389 was paid off and closed and another “Loan Against Property-HomeSaver Account” in account no. 52206038913 was sanctioned to the complainants having Home Loan No. 50906283 vide sanction letter dated 31/01/2017 for an amount of Rs. 3,11,00,000/- for a period of 180 months (15 years). The loan was sanctioned at a floating rate of interest 9.50% per annum at a monthly EMI installment of Rs. 03,24,754/- and the date of commencement of EMI was 01/03/2017.

The complainants checked their account statement dated 08/02/2017 for account no. 52206038913, it shown debtors to the tune of Rs. 03,11,00,000/- even though the Loan Account had not yet been made operational.

The several discrepancies kept cropping up but the complainants kept ignoring them and kept endeavoring to solve everything amicably. However, it was only appearing  during the time of Auditing of Financial Account for the years 2019-2020, the complainants got to know that the OP, had been charging excessive interest, as against the agreed terms from complainants and a total of Rs. 03,17,910/- had been charged excessively for the period May 2019 to April 2020 without utilizing any of the funds.  The complainants were never informed by the OP, about any charges in the rate of interest or any other charges, at any point of time.

Complainant immediately contacted the OP on 27/04/2020 apprised them about the situation and on 29/04/2020, the complainants got a call from the office of the OP from Ms. Afreen at 3.38 PM on 29/04/2020 and the complainants were told by her that they are ready to reimburse interest excessively charged only for two months, without giving any logic or reasoning behind it.  It is stated that this very act is an admission on the part of the OP, have excessively charged the complainants but having male fide intentions, are not ready to reimburse the full amount to the complainants.

Complainant approaches several times to OP for reimburse of the amount deducted but nothing has been done, hence, this complaint.

We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions of the complainant with relevant provisions of law.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, an elaborate evidence and cross-examination of the witness is required to elucidate the truth which cannot be done in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act.

In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated facts and issues. Complainant has also stated in the  complaint that OP has used unfair practice and cheating. This issues required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Commission.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Commission on  03/02/2021.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

                                   (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                         PRESIDENT

                                                                    (DR. R.C. MEENA)

                                                                          MEMBER